VOL. 18 ISSUE NO. 40 | OCTOBER 3-9, 2012

BY LINDA BENTLEY | OCTOBER 3, 2012

SCOTUS declines to review eligibility challenges

WASHINGTON – On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its scheduled order list for the cases distributed for conference on Sept. 24, including the petition submitted by Attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation on behalf of David P. Welden, et al v. Barack Obama.

Without comment, the Supreme Court denied Welden’s petition, which appealed the Feb. 3 order of Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi declaring Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to appear on the presidential primary ballot.

Irion stated, after exhausting the required procedures in Georgia, he filed his clients’ petition to the Supreme Court asking two questions:

1. Does the right to associate force states to accept any candidate from political parties for presentation on state primary ballots when such a candidate does not meet the minimum legal qualifications for the office sought, thereby negating state election laws and state control of elections?

2. Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens,” regardless of the citizenship of their parents?

While Irion believes these two fundamental questions must be addressed in order for our election process to have any validity, the Supreme Court justices apparently do not view them as pressing issues.

As a duly registered Democratic candidate for President, Cody Robert Judy’s petition was also distributed for conference on Sept. 24.

Judy’s petition asked three questions:
1. Are or should the respective state political (Democratic) parties and Federal Elections Commission be bound to the candidate office qualifications specified and required by the U.S. Constitution?
2. Is Barack Obama eligible for the office of President according to the natural born citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution?
3. Does evidence of a sheriff’s law enforcement report constituting probable cause of fraud and forgery of Obama’s identity papers and casting reasonable doubt on candidate’s qualifications, if avoided by the court, not constitute reprisal grounds for the release and pardon of all convicted of similar crimes for equal justice under the law?